Illegal Immigrant w/rock vs US Helicopter!

[Crazed Rabbit]

Result: Immigrant 1, Helicopter 0. (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/25/D8C71P6O0.html)

Well, it now appears that illegals seem to think they have some sort of right to come here and will not be detered by such things as laws or helicopters.

Any more evidence needed that we actually have to secure the border (and not just talk about a la Hillary 'I want to give loads of benefits to illegal immigrants' Clinton)? Or, for that matter, that Helis are rather fragile?

Crazed Rabbit

[Strike For The South]

Alright they use there weapons Ill use mine :book:

[bmolsson]

The immigrant that threw the rock should be given immediate citizenship and be enlisted to the national baseball team. What a throw...... ~;)

[Shaka_Khan]

Wow!!!!! They accomplished this with a rock which the Iraqis and the Taliban couldn't with all their rocket launchers.

[Sjakihata]

Im sure that if a rock hit a modern american attack helicopter, not a damn thing would happen.

This 'copter is obviously a fragile patrol aircraft.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, there is something pilots call the "golden BB"

(that's named after the small pellet air rifles called BB-guns here, just in case you come from a culture without such)

This is the incredibly small/low velocity round that happens, against all the almost incalcuable odds to hit exactly the wrong place and bring the bird down.

We don't have a national baseball team save in olympic competition, the real money is pitching in the bigs -- and you don't have to be a citizen either!

Seamus

[Shaka_Khan]

You're probably right. Still, what the illegal immigrant did was quite an accomplishment. Thank goodness the pilot is safe.

[lars573]

Well, it now appears that illegals seem to think they have some sort of right to come here and will not be detered by such things as laws or helicopters.
They do technically your founding fathers didn't make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, for them there was no such concept. That came in the early 20th century to keep out undesireables like Mexicans, Italians, Jews, and Poles. Racial discrimination aint it great.

[Strike For The South]

They do technically your founding fathers didn't make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, for them there was no such concept. That came in the early 20th century to keep out undesireables like Mexicans, Italians, Jews, and Poles. Racial discrimination aint it great.

Yes I have no problems with legal immagration (altohugh it should be slowed for everyone) but these are illegal and if they start using violence well the walls looking pretty damn fine bout now :book:

[Mongoose]

Stop being such a racist!!! Throwing rocks at law enforcement is legal in mexico...who are we to say that our ways are better then theirs? :hippy:
~D

[Xiahou]

What I thought was really interesting was that even though the border patrol was obviously on site, 10 of 27 illegals still evaded capture.

[lars573]

How is illegal immigration harmful it keeps your economy going by providing the slave labour class of working poor that a hard line capitalist nation like the US needs. I mean heaven forbid if the wealthy had to pay actual minimum or *gasb* above mimimum wage to have their every domestic need filled. Or their cloths made. Ahhh minimum wage Socialism in aciton.



Back when the founding fathers were around, the USA was 90% uninhabited land, and there were no such things as minimum wage laws.
90% that's pushing it. Maybe 75%, maybe.

[Red Harvest]

Im sure that if a rock hit a modern american attack helicopter, not a damn thing would happen.

This 'copter is obviously a fragile patrol aircraft.

Depends on the size and speed of the rock. ~;)

[Red Harvest]

Back when the founding fathers were around, the USA was 90% uninhabited land, and there were no such things as minimum wage laws.

Illegal Immigration is beyond harmful, they should not be allowed to do so. Legal immigration is fine, but I dare say the international hotel is full--turn around, and stop throwing rocks at our damned helicoptres.

They come illegally because of jobs. If I was sitting in Mexico right now with my family, and didn't have a good job, I would be trying to figure out how to get across the border with my wife and kids.

There are several problems you have to resolve. Putting up a wall alone won't do it. You need enough holding cells to make sure those captured never make it into the U.S. More importantly, you need to make sure illegals can't find employment, and therefore have no desire to pay a bunch of money to coyotes only to starve in the U.S. If you try to approach the problem from only one angle, you won't make a dent in it. I doubt most Amercians will be willing to pay the bill if they hear the real costs.

And land mines are insane (thinking of another thread). Any idiot proposing landmines deserves about 200 hours of community service hunting for landmines somewhere. Then we'll ask them how they feel about landmines.

[Xiahou]

They come illegally because of jobs. If I was sitting in Mexico right now with my family, and didn't have a good job, I would be trying to figure out how to get across the border with my wife and kids.
I probably would too- but that doesn't obligate Americans to accept you.

As I've said before, on top of all the issues with illegal immigration we already discuss, one of the things that cheeses me off about it is that by allowing it, we're basically propping up a corrupt ineffectual Mexican government. Instead of fixing their own problems, they can just export their unemployed or malcontent. Works great for Fox since things could get ugly for him if he had all of the unemployed/unhappy citizens sitting around his country thinking about how little their government is doing for them.

[Red Harvest]

I probably would too- but that doesn't obligate Americans to accept you.


And I didn't say that they should. However, it helps to analyze a problem by putting oneself in the other guys shoes, then deciding what would prevent the action. A wall? Hah...that's not gonna work by itself. I would much rather face a wall, than death in the desert, or suffocating in a railroad car or truck. Yet the desert isn't doing the trick, nor are the others.

A wall is being proposed as essentially a military solution to an economic/political problem.

[Shaka_Khan]

The wall would look so Iron Curtain.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Except we'd be trying to keep people out.


We shouldn't be worried about the well-being of these would-be criminals, we should be worrying about keeping them out.

Tell that to the southern poverty law center, who sued American citizens who stopped illegals from entering and legally stole their $100k ranch. That's right, illegals came here, sued for being 'traumatized' and got a citizen's ranch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html

We need:

A wall, well patrolled.

Real stiff penalties for employing illegals. Doesn't matter if they had the best fake IDs in the world.

Immediate illegal deportation, no matter what the circumstances are. Such people are never to be considered for legal immigration.

Change anchor baby law.

Crazed Rabbit

[Zalmoxis]

I don't wanna sound like an idiot but.. OWNT!!!

[Papewaio]

It seems cliche to say "They're taking jobs!" but it's true. And it's harmful. Not to mention it allows certain groups to circumvent tomes full of laws; i.e the farming industry, and the construction industry.



Wouldn't it make logical sense to enforce the current tomes of law before creating a new set?

Its like having home exercise equipment and never using it, then deciding that you are unhealthy and the solution is to go out and buy more home exercise equipment that you will never use.

Enforce the current laws, go for the throats of industry that are creating the demand and if that is not enough legislate more effective laws and enforce them.

[Red Harvest]

And it does not mean that the USA should have to lower it's standards to accomodate them. You want to solve the problem by fixing Mexico? Be my guest, just don't take too much of my tax money, and you had better make it quick. Want to lower minimum wage, give amnesty, and ignore the border? Kiss my ass, because you clearly don't realize the magnitude of the problem.

Lower minimum wage??? Hell no. It is too low already for a 1st world nation. You can't live on it working a single job...and that's without a family. My health care premiums would eat up ~40% of minimum wage if that's what I made, and my family is healthy and has the cheapest insurance we can find. Minimum wage isn't even a living wage.

I've been watching "the problem" before you were even conceived, so don't tell me I don't realize the magnitude of the problem.



A wall would be symbolic. That's why so many (myself included) find the idea appealing. The real solution is to give a hell of a lot more funding to the borders, and perhaps encourage state governers to organize local militias to patrol the borders. We shouldn't be worried about the well-being of these would-be criminals, we should be worrying about keeping them out. If they want in, they can do it legally. Another big step towards solving the problem would be changing the law regarding anchor babies. With luck, there will be legislation regarding this coming down the pipe some day in the near future.


And that's the problem. We have lots of symbolism already. The current Admin is mostly symbols, and little substance. If you really want to tackle this, it is going to take some serious resolve, a lot of money, and a fairly hard stance towards folks coming in. It is easy for you and I to propose what has to be done, but we all get soft hearted when we see the children and other innocents who will most certainly suffer as a result. Dealing with that is not easy (except for racists who don't really give a flip about innocents.) I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm saying this isn't going to be easy, and a symbol alone won't do the trick--by a long shot.

It will cost the Feds a fortune, but the states should benefit. It is state organs (health/welfare/education/penal) that are taxed the most by illegals. The Catch 22 is that you are most likely to see the strongest resistance in those states which would benefit most on paper...for demographic reasons.

If you study the history of U.S. state militia's over the past 100 years or so I think you will find they have been quite noxious beasts in the past. They tend to represent either mob violence, or the power of the elite...with not a whole lot in between. I would rather have career professionals handling things, rather than fire breathing amateurs.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Mr Harvest,

I believe I was one of the idiots who suggested laying minefields across the border (and I think I may have said the Canadian one too).

It was a joke in that was relevant to the thread it was posted in
:rolleyes:

besides, I'd actually use sci-fi laser towers if I were to go down that route, no really. ~D

[Sjakihata]

You guys better start learning Spanish

[Proletariat]

Wouldn't it make logical sense to enforce the current tomes of law before creating a new set?


I usually agree with this feeling, but everything I've heard about the laws that punish employers of illegals sounds like they are pretty ineffectual. They can basically say, "How the hell should I have the acumen to examine papers and IDs to determine if they're fake? I'm just a stupid farmer looking for help" and completely get away with it.

[el_slapper]

The thing is, we live in an era of big migration. As long as the incentive is there, people will relocate where life is better. That's as old as mankind.

In other words, the lone solution to my eyes is to take care of the incentive. The incentive being economic at first(politics is faaaaaar beyond), who wants not to see immigrants anymore has to take care of original's country economic problems...

[Redleg]

Wouldn't it make logical sense to enforce the current tomes of law before creating a new set?

Its like having home exercise equipment and never using it, then deciding that you are unhealthy and the solution is to go out and buy more home exercise equipment that you will never use.

Enforce the current laws, go for the throats of industry that are creating the demand and if that is not enough legislate more effective laws and enforce them.

Yep the current laws need to be actually enforced by all government agencies. THe problem also comes from the local agencies - ie some state, county, and city policing agencies absolutely refuse to report any illegals to INS and hold them for deportation.

[Idaho]

Lower minimum wage??? Hell no. It is too low already for a 1st world nation. You can't live on it working a single job...and that's without a family. My health care premiums would eat up ~40% of minimum wage if that's what I made, and my family is healthy and has the cheapest insurance we can find. Minimum wage isn't even a living wage.

Working people of the world rise up! You have nothing to lose but your chains! :charge:

[lars573]

I hope your being sarcastic. I work two jobs minimum wage. I would be out on the streets if I lost either one; so if a Mexican came and too my place because he was willing to work for less than minimum, I'd go find him and kill him. No joke.
The first senence was me being serious, the second was sarcasm. Your nation was built (and mine as well to be fair) on the backs of the working class. But when a myriad of socialist legislation (minimum wage, safety regulations, retirement, benefits, child labour proebition) was passed not just in north america but western europe over time it began to make employing citizens unprofitable or just too expensive to be worth it. That is why that now a good deal lower end jobs are part time so you don't need to give benefits. Now you can get 3 illegal Mexicans for the same price as 1 legal immigrant or US citizen. As cost benefit ratios go that's a very good one. You don't have to pay the illegals minimum wage you don't have give them any kind of benefits and you can treat them however you want as if they complain you can report them to INS. The only real way to reduce (stopping it is impossible) illegal immigration is to either lower the US standard of living to be akin to Mexico or raise Mexicos to be comporable to the US.

[yesdachi]

I am not an expert on the specifics of legal immigration but I would like to point out that there are people that try to get into this country and cant because of number limitations (this is a good thing). But the US is forced to turn away foreigners that could be excellent additions to the country (engineers, computers, medical, etc. but not Doctors and athletes they have different rules.) because the limit is reached very quickly and without any clear system of choosing who gets the chance other than a “next in line” type system. These people are forced to go to their next choice of country (Chinese companies seem to be offering good $ for skilled people) while we are being flooded with gardeners and farm laborers (stereotyping, I know).

We are hitting ourselves with a rock in the rudder by not being selective with immigration. ~;)

[Red Harvest]

I don't get your position Red Harvest. What's your point? You sound like you want action, but at the same time are convinced that any action will be immoral.

I don't care if it inconveniences the poor Mexicans. From a national point of view, we need to put the US first.

There are substantial economic and security problems looming with the vast illegal immigration. It is something we need to deal with, but not in a haphazard fashion. A lot of the talk in some quarters has a fairly strong racial/ethnic overtone. That's not going to work, as it is likely to raise the ire of spanish speaking citizens in the border states.

Several points:
1. It isn't going to be as simple as building a wall--the wall is more a symbol than an effective deterrent by itself.
2. If we decide to do this as a country, then we need to have it well thought out first. This isn't the sort of thing to get stuck in reactive mode on.
3. It won't be cheap, and it needs to be done as a complete package if we want it to succeed.
4. You can't ignore the "heartstrings" effect this will have in the U.S. so you must be prepared for it. That's why proper holding facilities and rapid return must be available at the outset. It's a case of losing the backing of the citizens if it is poorly executed, and if a bunch of folks are suffering...while the effort itself is not proving successful. As long as families are being returned rapidly it has a good chance of success. If it turns into a long punishing ordeal for families with children, then it is going to lose support rapidly.
5. I know you believe in militia's and all that, but this really needs to be a coherent Federal organ if the mission is border protection. It could be badly compromised by local fiefdom's and prejudiced types wanting to crack the skulls of "wetbacks" as they see them.